Why are voters in elections for government officers, constitutional amendments, and ballot referenda, not required to recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest?
When members of governing boards gather to vote, it is normal procedure for any members who have a conflict of interest, to recuse themselves from voting on those matters in which their personal interest might color their judgement while voting. Why are voters in elections for government officers, constitutional amendments, and ballot referenda, not required to recuse themselves?
Judges recuse themselves from presiding over, or hearing, cases in which they are interested parties. Jurors are disqualified from serving if found to have a personal interest in the outcome of a trial. The impropriety and risk of unfairness resulting from the involvement of persons with conflicts of interest are well understood, studied by experts, negotiated across generations, and mitigated in so many aspects of civil society and governance. Why then, is voter participation in government affairs different? Why should people with glaring conflicts of interest get to vote in opposition to the interests and rights of their neighbors, when they vote in favor of creating or advancing a personal financial interest?
History shows that people with conflicts of interest SHOULD NOT get to vote, and that voting with a conflict of interest endangers the integrity of elections for officials and ballot measures.
Large numbers of voters with conflicts of interest in government elections lead to a ratchet effect, where no program that doles out money or power can ever be scaled back or rescinded. A robustly democratic process would allow for bad programs and bureaucracies to be slashed or eliminated, but that never happens. The people profiting from the programs, vote for their financial interests, which conflict with the interests of the general public. Only by disqualifying voters who have a conflict of interest in a particular contest, can elections work properly to reflect a general “will of the people” or to express the “wisdom of crowds”. A robustly democratic election must support the possibility of reducing or eliminating government programs, but because of the votes of people with clear conflicts of interest, reducing or eliminating government programs never happens in the real world until there is a crisis and revolution.
When people vote on matters of civil government, or in an association involving property, or at an employer, affecting the income of others, voting with the bias inherent in conflicts of interest will likely affect other people adversely. It is likely to benefit the interested voter at the cost of others. Even if the interested party were to vote the same way without the conflict of interest as they would with the conflict, it is impossible to prove how the interested voter would have voted without the conflict, therefore the vote is undeniably tainted.
